Scofield survey results

[Charina]

I'm a bit surprised that here in late 2016, there is an angler survey and the appearance of a lack of plan by the DWR. I applaud the survey, but wonder why we are so far behind the downfall of Scofield.

In <a href="http://wildlife.utah.gov/blog/2011/a-strategy-for-scofield/">May 2011, Paul Birdsey</a> indicated that a study was underway, and if appropriate, the DWR would "plan on treating the reservoir in 2014 or 2015."

"The DWR is not just sitting back and waiting to see what happens at Scofield. It is too important a fishery for that approach." How does one reconcile that quote, with the fact that we are still in a decision phase, more than 5 years later?

The number of very large predators needed to make a dent in long-lived adult chub populations means that at this point, we are several years until the tide would begin to shift using predators. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see additional tiger trout walleyes, or wipers regularly gulping down 12-15 inch chub anytime soon. And when they do reach the point, the shift to a healthy balance won't be a quick one.

Rotenone makes the most sense at this point. Large cuts or tigers are good for keeping populations under control, not attacking an out of control population.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

[quote Charina]I'm a bit surprised that here in late 2016, there is an angler survey and the appearance of a lack of plan by the DWR. I applaud the survey, but wonder why we are so far behind the downfall of Scofield.

In <a href="http://wildlife.utah.gov/blog/2011/a-strategy-for-scofield/">May 2011, Paul Birdsey</a> indicated that a study was underway, and if appropriate, the DWR would "plan on treating the reservoir in 2014 or 2015."

"The DWR is not just sitting back and waiting to see what happens at Scofield. It is too important a fishery for that approach." How does one reconcile that quote, with the fact that we are still in a decision phase, more than 5 years later?

The number of very large predators needed to make a dent in long-lived adult chub populations means that at this point, we are several years until the tide would begin to shift using predators. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see additional tiger trout walleyes, or wipers regularly gulping down 12-15 inch chub anytime soon. And when they do reach the point, the shift to a healthy balance won't be a quick one.

Rotenone makes the most sense at this point. Large cuts or tigers are good for keeping populations under control, not attacking an out of control population.[/quote]

I think the Southeastern Fisheries Manager wants a feather in his cap for managing Scofield without rotenone.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]

[Charina]

Perhaps. I would have no idea. But the timing and facts of the situation don't merit anyone getting any positive recognition IMO. It's coming up on 10 years since it was noted that the chub pop in Scofield was "skyrocketing". Sure, tigers were planted shortly thereafter, and that probably would have worked if managed appropriately, but clearly it was a fail.

Those opposed to rotenone point to it's failure in the past at Scofield. Are they saying that the treatment did not remove the vast majority of chub? How about pointing to the failure of implementing biological controls at the point when it was possible to do so? How about the many times rotenone has been successful? (e.g. strawberry - those cuts would never have been able to "stay on top" of a chub pop that was already out of control)

Am I just being stupid thinking that the obvious answer is a combination of chemical and predator control? Rotenone will never get every single chub from a drainage. They will be back, whether by bucket biologists, or naturally. There must be a mechanism in place long-term to keep their numbers in control.

In the mean time, this ship should be righted sooner than later.

(but not before this ice season - I need to stock up on chub meat []).
[signature]